No wait, I think he's on to something here. The problem is that the idea doesn't go far enough.

I think if we want to do this right, we should vote regularly on every law. That way we can have no consistency. That way our foundation as a nation of laws can be utterly undermined, leaving the door completely open for mob rule (aka anarchy). I'm actually a little surprised that no one thought of this before.

Thanks for your input. That's what I'm saying I do think there needs to be an amendment that gives both sides a chance, but at the same time doesn't disenfranchise same sex couples already married. I want to be fair. You have a better idea please share. It was just an idea. I'm just trying to think of some way to make it fair for both sides while trying to make the wishes of the majority count while at the same time giving others a chance next time. If you think the time between each vote should be lengthened please tell what you'd have it be. Let's hear your idea that makes it fair for both sides.

Moral and religious reasons I don't think the Government should cater to. The people being treated "unfairly" are those who's personal beliefs are getting in the way of the law and constitution and frankly, Separation of Church makes many of those opinions void anyway.

So you'll have to clear up for me what exactly the other side is losing in this situation.

Well because when a new generation comes along the idea of marriage for that state might change because there is a new group that might think differently. I don't want to disenfranchise them. I want the new generation to be given a chance to reafirm or change the prior ruling.

And yeah people should live their lives. But since people want to vote on the issue shouldn't their wishes of it being voted on be granted?

And for it being an amendement that is to put up a stop sign to elected officials who would want to overrule the voters. That's the thing. Elected officials are voters too. They shouldn't have a vote that counts more than any other one individual. So the only people I want involved in this decision should be everybody. Not an elected official telling us what to do.

Moral and religious reasons I don't think the Government should cater to.

I disagree that governments should not cater to moral considerations.

Luckily, for the sake of our discussion on this topic, there aren't any moral considerations for the prevention of equal rights. Or perhaps it would be more correct to say that none have been brought forth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD Nihil

Critism is good. But if you just have that then you've not contributed to a solution.

The solution has been "contributed" ad nauseam: allow consenting adults to marry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD Nihil

If you have a better idea that makes it fair for both sides, and doesn't disenfranchise already married gay couples please tell me.

Sure thing: allow consenting adults to marry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD Nihil

It'd be great if we can come up with some good ideas.

I'm just gonna throw this one out there for discussion. Tell me what you think: allow consenting adults to marry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD Nihil

I'm perfectly fine with being critisized. It doesn't bother me. It's how we learn what ideas are good and what ones are dumb. That's cool.

Sounds so good, on paper. The hard part is where people don't abandon their faulty positions once they've been shown that they lack merit (see: contents of my ignore list).

And for it being an amendement that is to put up a stop sign to elected officials who would want to overrule the voters. That's the thing. Elected officials are voters too. They shouldn't have a vote that counts more than any other one individual. So the only people I want involved in this decision should be everybody. Not an elected official telling us what to do.

We live in a Republic for a reason:

Direct Democracy has never worked on a country wide scale. It works about as well as True Socialism, or True Communism.

I didn't say say if I was for or against gay marriage anyway. I simply think that voters if the majority on both sides want to vote on something shouldn't we honor their decision to vote. Yes people should live their lives. If we don't allow gay marriage for all we are disenfranchising the individuals who want to marry the same sex. But if we also allow gay marriage for all and a large group wants to vote that out of their state and we don't allow for it then are we not disenfranchising their right to vote.

Non-sequitur, mimartin. If we're going to make the rules up as we go along and change them every year, then a constitution can't exist. Inherent rights will be ignored because we're arguing that mob rule should be the mechanism by which rights are established.

For anyone interested in learning what such a scenario might look like, I recommend checking out the French Revolution. Good times.

Exactly. Why have a Constitution if it says a marriage is between a man and a woman and you change it at the state level. Are you not then doing something unconstitutional. So if you are for following the Constitution and it says marriage is between a man and a woman and you want to overturn it then like you said the what is the point of the Constitution if you can just change it when you want.

That's what I'm saying I do think there needs to be an amendment that gives both sides a chance

Personally, I am highly sceptical that such a thing could ever be achieved. Where there are 'sides' opposed to such a right, where one side desires its implementation and the other is opposed to its implementation, it will be impossible without creating some useless and ineffective breed of law - one that would do harm to the need for legal certainty. Either the right should be granted, with all certainty that it will be active and relevant for the forseeable future, or it should not be granted. Though, as discussed at great length, more and more now the latter would be consistent with denying a fundamental right.

Withdrawing a right at a later stage would be, if anything, worse than never acknowledging it. All that would come out of it would be a large group of enraged people.

Quote:

I want to be fair. You have a better idea please share. It was just an idea. I'm just trying to think of some way to make it fair for both sides while trying to make the wishes of the majority count

Which is admirable, but possibly fundamentally unworkable. Had it been two groups at odds over an issue of construction or some issue of legal framework, compromise would possibly be available. However, as I wrote above, where the argument is over the very existence of the right in the first place, compromise would seem impossible.

Should the will of the majority be able to override the rights of the (growing) minority? It is an awkward question, for the sole reason that it involves the claim of a right held by another group. I find the argument of discrimination to be a powerful one - and whether I personally agree with it or not (it is an issue that I am uncertain of at this time), it seems to be becoming indefensible from a legal standpoint to continue to deny it.

Quote:

at the same time giving others a chance next time. If you think the time between each vote should be lengthened please tell what you'd have it be. Let's hear your idea that makes it fair for both sides.

I think allowing the country to vote once every four years for a person that shares their opinions over the matter is sufficient. Rule by plebiscite is interesting as an exercise in pure democracy, but it doen't always help provide a coherent legal perspective.

My suggestion would be that the government should take a bold stance one way or the other. Though that is unlikely. The next option would be the courts, but they did take a bold step and were swiftly overruled by plebiscite.

All other possibilities - including the EU model (if a marriage is legally binding in the State of origin of a couple, any other State to which they move must also recognise their union) seem to be rather weak half-measures. At least to me.

Exactly. Why have a Constitution if it says a marriage is between a man and a woman and you change it at the state level.

The United States Constitution provides the framework for our federal government. If gay marriage is a state's rights issue (as the constitution would indicate) then it would make sense that it would be decided at the state level, no?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD Nihil

Are you not then doing something unconstitutional.

Nope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD Nihil

So if you are for following the Constitution and it says marriage is between a man and a woman and you want to overturn it then like you said the what is the point of the Constitution if you can just change it when you want.

The Constitution doesn't say that.

And if the legislature passes something unconstitutional and the executive signs it into law, the judicial branch can still override it. It's called "judicial review". It's part of the checks and balances of power that the Framers built into our system to keep us from doing stupid things to ourselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD Nihil

So that's why I was trying to come up with a compromise here.

Why do we need such a compromise for gay marriage, but not for other things...like slavery?

I still do not understand why you think future generations should be given the opportunity to take rights away from their fellow citizens ever few years. That is like saying that "people born in the 90s hate alcohol so they should have a referendum in case some want it banned once more". Why not do that with ever law?

I want to be fair. You have a better idea please share. It was just an idea. I'm just trying to think of some way to make it fair for both sides while trying to make the wishes of the majority count while at the same time giving others a chance next time. If you think the time between each vote should be lengthened please tell what you'd have it be. Let's hear your idea that makes it fair for both sides.

It would be 'fair' if the opinions of the bigoted majority were simply disregarded. Sometimes the rights of the minority have to be protected. That's fair. A compromise will just make both sides unhappy and accomplish nothing.

If a fat kid (anti-gay marriage) and a skinny kid (pro-gay marriage) are fighting over a cake (marriage), and the fat kid wants the entire cake while the skinny kid wants an equal share, would you say it is a fair compromise to give the skinny kid a few crumbs and let the fat kid have the rest? Would it be fair to give the fat kid the opportunity to bully the skinny kid into giving up his share?
No, the fat kid is being greedy and irrational, this is where the parents step in and give each kid their equal share.

Then the fat kid starts whining about 'activist parents' who don't respect the majority's will...

(It's not even that accurate of an analogy come to think of it, because if gay marriage becomes legal, there is now an extra cake just for the skinny kid and the fat kid can have the entire original cake, just like he wanted. He just seems so opposed to the idea of the skinny kid having a cake as well...)

Why do we need such a compromise for gay marriage, but not for other things...like slavery?

This comment reminds me of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. The debates were over slavery, of course, but just as importantly (to me at least) they were also concerned with popular sovereignty (Douglas) verses doing the right thing (Lincoln).

Kind of pertains to this situation, doesn't it?

"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.

Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."

Let’s face it; the real reason Homosexual Marriage is not equally protection under the law is because a certain segment of the population still uses degrading terms towards homosexuals to justify discrimination. I really don’t know which is sadder, people degrading others, people believing the degradation to justify the status quo or that we have learned nothing in 150 years.

Let’s face it; the real reason Homosexual Marriage is not equal protection under the law because a certain segment of the population still uses degrade terms towards homosexuals to justify discrimination. I really don’t know which is sadder, people degrading others, people believing the degradation to justify the status quo or that we have learned nothing in 150 years.

I thought it was because a majority of people just find it "icky"
I do not agree that it is on par with slavery, unless you think it's the equivalent of being socially acceptable to beat, starve, work near to death GLBT persons. It is however along the lines of the discrimination of the 1960's. When it was not considdered acceptable to see an interracial couple. So it's 50 years rather than 150 years... Which doesn't make it all that much better, but it's more accurate.

On a side note, I have heard more gay men talking about their experiences... That's something I can do without. Then again, I don't want to hear about straight couples intimate moments either. And don't tell me I have to watch this movie or I'm homophobic. No, the movie was boring(I tried, it bored me to tears). It wasn't about what I wanted to see. I don't watch touchy feely movies either. No car chases, big action sequences, people getting disemboweled, and no gunfights.. NOT MY KIND OF MOVIE! Just because it has a story about gays does not mean that if I don't watch it I'm homophobic.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

Since this is a PG 13 forum, I really don't think it would be appropriate for me to link degrading remarks that puts down Homosexual. I understand some will not find surprising where many of these remarks are coming from, but it saddens me many are coming from my fellow Christians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat

I do not agree that it is on par with slavery,

I’d agree, but discrimination is discrimination and that we are still using the same arguments to attempt to justify it is on par with slavery.

Since this is a PG 13 forum, I really don't think it would be appropriate for me to link degrading remarks that puts down Homosexual. I understand some will not find surprising where many of these remarks are coming from, but it saddens me many are coming from my fellow Christians.
I’d agree, but discrimination is discrimination and that we are still using the same arguments to attempt to justify it is on par with slavery.

Good point. Many disagree on religious grounds and well that's about the most legitimate(though still wrong). And I know we're pretty well in agreement on the discrimination bit. I just think it hurts the argument when it's placed equivalent to slavery. It could however hold water as the equivalent of the civil rights movement as it more closely ties in with that. Burning crosses, lynchings, beatings, and of course not giving equal protections... so yeah it's about there.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

There may be some misunderstanding of the argument. In my opinion slavery and denial of Homosexual marriage are not equal, but the misrepresentations used to justify enslaving African-Americans or as you pointed out justifying discrimination against them since the end of slavery are comparable to people saying it is justifiable to discriminate against Homosexuals today. The opinion that one wrong is less severe than another has nothing to do with the argument.

There may be some misunderstanding of the argument. In my opinion slavery and denial of Homosexual marriage are not equal, but the misrepresentations used to justify enslaving African-Americans or as you pointed out justifying discrimination against them since the end of slavery are comparable to people saying it is justifiable to discriminate against Homosexuals today. The opinion that one wrong is less severe than another has nothing to do with the argument.

Ah, I get it.. you aren't talking so much about slavery as an equal to the unfairness given to homosexuality. You are saying that similar arguments are used between the two. And by extension how those arguments persisted through the years even after slavery was abolished to justify unfair civil rights protections.

I can agree to that. To be honest though. people justify a lot of things through whatever means is available.

Oh and I have to mention that it sickens me the most to see Christians doing this. They should not be the ones judging people as immoral. We are all sinners. You know, that whole, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" thing... If you even believe that homosexuality is a sin(though there are passages that suggest that, but then so is casting your seed upon the ground). But at any rate, they are supposed to be accepting of all. turn the other cheek... turn a blind eye...

It's never my business to meddle in other people's business. Even if I myself find it gross. I'm sure there are things that I do that others would consider gross, weird, strange, or whatever(no specifics, too adult for PG13). Not my business. Definitely not the government's business. So restricting a relationship based on perceived normal behavior is just not right.

The majority of those opposed to gay marriage are hypocrites. Unless they strictly have intercourse for the purposes of procreation(I'm sure there are some... what boring people they must be)... they are hypocrites. Would all the women who oppose it appreciate if their husband left them because they could not have a child? Or how about the men if they are unable... Chances are they would be upset. Because they marry not for procreation, but love. That's all that the homosexual couples want. The ability to be hounded by their lover into getting married to prove that it's really love(hehe just kidding). They just want to be able to marry the one they love just like the rest of us. Just like the black man who wanted to marry a white woman he loved. Or the white man wanting to marry the black woman he loved.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

Besides, George wrote, Prop 8 - the initiative that reinstated the ban on same-sex marriages - hardly eviscerates the sweeping opinion he wrote last year. Gays, he said, are still entitled to the highest level of protection against discrimination afforded in the land, except in the instance of marriage.

I guess... Not sure how he could think it's wrong not to treat them as equals yet still feel it's ok to not treat them as equals in all areas. Seems just flat out strange...

Only justification I can even think of to justify the anti marriage movement is that Marriage is also a religious notion. But so long as marriage is recognized by the government, that defense goes out the window(establishment clause).

It may just be how the argument for the unconstitutionality was phrased rather than as a discrimination case. Still... just hypocritical of him.

Note: I'm not gay. I do not like homosexuality. I actually find it disgusting and an abomination(sorry TA, that's just how I feel). But that doesn't mean that I think they should not be treated fairly under the law. We don't keep obscenely obese people from getting married. Just because it's "not right" doesn't mean that it should be used as a reason to discriminate against them.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

Note: I'm not gay. I do not like homosexuality. I actually find it disgusting and an abomination(sorry TA, that's just how I feel).

I can't and wont try to convince you otherwise on the disgusting part. I find straight sex to be fairly disgusting (probably not at the level you dislike homosexuality, but up there), so it really comes down to orientation. You're straight, and trying to "convert" you or other nonsense would be naive and counter productive. I, personally, find the thought of male/male sex to be about as disgusting as straight sex, so I can at least relate to your feelings on the matter even though I have gay friends.

However, the abomination part I have a problem with depending on the definition. If by abomination you mean something disgusting and so on, then see above. If you mean abomination in the new age sense of "unnatural", then I'd have to point out that is happens naturally among many species.

Most animals are irrelevant (rats, dogs, and so on) as their sex is entirely instinct based and with lack of a mate will turn on their own gender to basically ease their hormones and programming. For social animals who have play/social sex (like humans, monkeys, apes, a few others) there is plenty of evidence to suggest that sexual orientation is not black and white in the make-up of our brains.

With just complete homosexuals (which, I will admit, are not all that common), you have bisexuals, bi-curious, transsexual, third gender (which I transcribe to over "lesbianism" as I neither truly identify with either gender to categorize myself on a gender level, as I can identify and sort of think as both and neither), asexual, omnisexual (a very interesting orientation that a friend of mine is), and the like, dozen or so others known and unknown.

While I cannot and will not try to convince you otherwise on the disgusting half, as that is how you were born and I respect that, I do hope that you would hopefully not see it as an abomination in the unnatural sense and hate people for something that is, often, out of their control (although that is arguable in some cases, but I'd save that for a PM if you'd be at all interested. Just a thought, as saying more would be off-topic a little).

I normally disagree heavily on the notion that Humans are not animals, but if I had to pick one idea that that put animals of higher intelligence (dolphins, great apes, humans, certain monkeys, etc) into a different category, it would be their ability to have social sex, and their ability to love. Love is, by all means, a new and interesting addition to the world of procreation and has opened a lot of doors for animals of higher development like humans, for better or for worse. Things aren't as strictly black and white as they are with animals of lower brain function, and in Humans its escalated into dozens of fetishes, orientations, and so on to the point that sex is more of a psychological undertaking than for procreation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat

But that doesn't mean that I think they should not be treated fairly under the law. We don't keep obscenely obese people from getting married. Just because it's "not right" doesn't mean that it should be used as a reason to discriminate against them.

You find me disgusting, vile, and possibly bordering on hatred of my existence and yet you're still up for saying that.

Wish more people were like you. I respect your honesty, and respect that you didn't hide your genuine disgust with some religious excuse.

Just so you understand(without dragging this too far off topic) I think of homosexuality in the same sense as a mutation. While it occurs regularly, it is abnormal. Hence the abomination. BUT as with other mutations that occur, it is not your choice. There is no cure. There is no point in trying to "convert" you. In essence it is in my eyes no different than Cerebal Palsy. You're just wired different.

And the acts, quite frankly, are what I find disgusting. But then as a smoker(though trying to quit) I can't hate someone for doing what I find disgusting. I eat Sushi. Many people find that disgusting. There are a thousand things I may do that others find disgusting.

So... to sum up:
Icky is not a good reason to discriminate.
Abnormal is not a reason to discriminate.

Just because I don't like something is no good reason to treat that person any differently.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

I'm extremely disappointed in my state. California really needs to get rid of elected judges, it's an injustice. And as for prop 8 hopefully the trend continues and it is overturned in 2010 or 2012, hopefully my generation is more tolerant of others.